RwandaGenocideINTERNALMEDIA

I: INTRODUCTION
One of the main ways in which the 1994 Rwanda genocide was made possible was through the use of the country's internal media. The three main sources for transferring information were the government-funded Radio Rwanda, the newspaper Kangura, and Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTML), the radio station that was inaugurated just one year prior to the start of the genocide. It was through these media outlets that the organizers and perpetrators of the genoicde spread messages of hate through the nation. The Hutu and Tutsi populations were polarized and the dynamic was created in which ethnic identities were reason enough for the genocidarie to massacre their neighbors. They twisted the truth of the genocide and spread lies claiming that the Tutsi were the perpetrator of murder. By using media as a tool the Interhamwe and its leaders were able to validate the killing and mask their goals of political power. No efforts were made by the international community to stop any of these broadcastings. Some of the owners, disc jockeys, writers and editors of Rwandan media facilities that were used to incite the genocide are currently being tried in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on counts of inciting genocide and using hate propaganda.-top-

II: BACKGROUND ON MEDIA SOURCES
RTML was inaugurated on April 8, 1993 just one year prior to the start of the genocide. The privately funded radio station was started as a way in which "to circumvent the ban imposed on "harmful radio propaganda" to which the Rwandan government had formerly committed itself to in the March 1993 Dar-es-Salaam joint communiqué"[1]. Radio Rwanda, the national radio of the Rwandan government was thus legally restricted from participating in the broadcasting of hate propaganda. Although, because of this convention, they were not technically responsible for the actual broadcasting, they did help in funding, staffing and supplying facilities to RTML. During the civil war, Radio Rwanda was the nation's main source for relaying information and updates about the war. Moreover, they gained much of their popularity from their comical style as well as from their more formal reporting programs.[2] Kangura, the most popular of Rwanda's newspapers was made famous by printing their "10 Hutu Commandments"- made to mimic the Bible's 10 commandments. The goals of the commandments were to mistreat and discriminate against Rwandan Tutsi.[3]. Although all internal media sources were important tools in constructing the genocide, RTML was the most widely utilized of these. -top-

III: HATE PROPAGANDA
The main way in which media was used prior to, during and after the genocide was in assisting the Hutu militia in their goals of exterminating the Tutsi population of Rwanda. For years, and more intensely in the months, leading up to the genocide the RTML spoke openly of their opposition to the Tutsi minority and instigated an increase in animosity between Hutu and Tutsi. Working closely with the Hutu militia, the radio station warned the nation, as well as the international community, of the blood bath that was to be seen in Rwanda.[4] Kangura, a Rwandan newspaper, was used to incite hate and disseminate messages of anti-Tutsi sentiment.[5] The RTML also explicitly deplored certain Rwandan officials and generated descent against those individuals. Each of these techniques were extremely useful in moving the massacre along.
From the start of the genocide, the Hutu militia broadcasted the reinforcement of roadblock that had been set up in order to catch Tutsi. They also insisted that all Rwandans carry their identification cards so that the killers were able to distinguish between Hutu and Tutsi.[6] Their broadcasts even went as far as to suggest which weaponry the killers were to use on particular days. Moreover, the radio stations worked with the militia and security forces to help the genocidaire locate their next targets. Once the genocide had begun, the media used knowledge had by most of the nation that a civil war was under way to skew the truth and confuse its listeners. Although the Hutu majority were in the process of massacring the Tutsi minority, the radio station attempted to convince its listeners that the Hutu were under attack by the RPF. Ananie Nkurunziza, an RTML broadcaster was quoted as having said, "[o]bviously, the people who are now being exterminated are the Hutus"[7]. This was just another way in which Rwanda's internal media was abused for the benefit of the genocidaire.
As time passed, refugee camps were set up in the countries bordering Rwanda. It was in those camps that millions of Hutu fled, as well as where the killers reconvened and planned the continuation of their attacks. In addition to the radio stations, FM transmitters were being used in the camps to pass information through the genocidaire.[8] The station broadcasted "safe spaces" in which the genocidaire could join together. They also forcefully recommended that the genocidaire regain their strength and return promptly to the killing field
It is quite clear that Rwanda's internal media was used throughout the organization and execution of the genocide to incite hate. Their broadcasts also contributed to orchestrating and perpetuating the killing throughout the stages of the massacre. This having been said, the international community sat by and did nothing to stop the broadcasting of such propaganda. -top-

IV: INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
Although the broadcasts of the RTML were bring transmitted throughout the world via CNN and news print media, nothing was done by the international community in response to its blatant encouragements for genocide. During the massacre, NGOs from the United States called for the US government to jam the radio station airwaves to prevent them from broadcasting. [9] In early June, Democratic Senator of Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy appealed to the administration to jam the radio stations.[10] Kennedy was among the many to produce pleas to the international community to take action; still, the reaction of the United States was slight. The were two actions that would have been appropriate ways in which to have potentially prevented the genocide. The first action would have been for any number of international actors to have blocked of jammed Rwanda's radio transmission. The second, and possibly more feasible, action would have been to broadcast "alternative, conciliatory programming"[11]. The later operation would have been less expensive and would have eliminated the US's main concerns in getting involved: the protection of free speech. In addition to the US government, the French also chose not to act in response to the hate propaganda on the grounds that their humanitarian participation through Operation Turquoise would be the full extent of their intervention. Although Belgium was quite involved in peacekeeping in Rwanda, after losing 10 of their soldiers, they too kept their involvement to a minimum.
During the genocide, Romeo Dallaire, the force commander for UNAMIR, called on the international community to take action and jam the broadcasting of the radio stations. Throughout much of the genocide, the hands of the Untied Nations were tied. Dallaire claimed that, "the UN, having no power akin to a sovereign state, is only able to act of the expressed wished of member states though the Security Council"[12]. Being member states, the United States, France and Belgium could have called upon the joint forces of the United Nations to stop the hate propaganda that was being pumped through Rwanda. The three main reasons for which the Clinton administration chose not to interfere with the radio broadcasting were the financially expensive nature of jamming the stations, their fear of getting too closely involved in a volatile situation and losing troops to the effort (such as in Somalia), and the international law of radio jamming. [13] Although international law did not seem to be the main concern within the internal discussions of the administration, to avoid moral criticism, the United States clung to the free speech censorship argument. -top-

V: INTERNATIONAL LAW
Looking back at the drafting of the 1948 Genocide Convention it will be shown that the United States objected to Article II, addressing the incitement of the genocide. Throughout this section of the convention, media broadcasting such as what would later be the 1994 events in Rwanda would constitute the incitement of genocide. In opposition, the US stated that, "[u]nder Anglo-American rules of law the right of free speech is not to be interfered with unless there is a clear and present danger that the utterance might interfere with the rights of others"[14]. After much debate, and strong consideration for the US's concern, the final draft reads as: "[t]he following acts shall be punishable… direct public or private incitement to commit the crime of genocide whether such incitement be successful or not"[15]. In the end, the United States abstained from voting on the article on the grounds of their initial objection. Article III was written to include the use of hate propaganda in inciting genocide. It read as follows: "[a]ll forms of public propaganda tending by their systematic and hateful character to promote genocide, or tending to make it appear as a necessary, legitimate or excusable act shall be punished"[16]. In response to the claims that the second and third article were overlapping it was stated that, "genocide cannot take place unless a certain state of mind has previously been creates"[17]. The former Soviet Union was strongly in favor of an article specifically about hate propaganda. They claimed that Mein Kampf greatly influenced the Holocaust, and that there should thus be something to prevent the further use or distribution of a piece of writing that so bluntly incited hate. Author Frank Chalk wrote that in his view, "freedom of speech arguments fail when radio broadcasting directly violate Article III (c) of the UN Genocide Convention, naming "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" as punishable under the convention"[18]. -top-

VI: CONCLUSION
Author William Schabas wrote that, "genocide is prepared with propaganda, a bombardment of lies and hatred directed against the targeted groups, and aimed at preparing the 'willing executioners' for the atrocious tasks they will be asked to perform"[19]. In the case of Rwanda, there were many things that went into preparing for, and following through with, committing the slaughter that was the 1994 genocide. Hate propaganda, transmitted via the airways as well as through newsprint, was the main way in which form of information transfer. Members of the Hutu militia communicated with one another through the radio station, RTML, and used the system to help them increase their strength. Many of the people who participated in these acts are now on trial on counts of inciting genocide. Leading up to, and during, the genocide the international community made no attempts to jam the radio stations, thus allowing for the propaganda to flow freely throughout Rwanda. Though claims of free speech and sovereignty were made, in a case such as this when the media was so clearly used in helping to destroy an entire group of people, something should gave been done. -top-

ENDNOTES
1. Radio Netherlands
2. International Moniter Institute
3. Kirschke, Linda. Broadcasting Genocide; Censorship, Propaganda,& State-Sponsored Violence in Rwanda 1990-1994. London: ARTICLE 19, 1996. (67)
4. Ibid.
5.Chalk, Frank. "Hate Radio in Rwanda". The Path of a Genocide; The Rwanda Crisis from Uganda to Zaire. Eds. Howard Adelman & Astri Suhrke. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1999.
6. Kirschke 114
7. .International Moniter Institute
8.Radio Netherlands
9. Schabas, William A. "Hate Speech in Rwanda: the Road to Genocide". McGill Law Journal (2000). 148
10. Chalk 103
11. Kuperman, Alan J. "The Lessons of Rwanda: Mediators Sometimes Do More Damage than Good". SAIS Review 16.1 (1996): 221-240.
12. Dallaire, Romeo A. "The End of Innocence: Rwanda 1994". Hard choices; Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention. Ed. Jonathan Moore. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. 71-80.
13. Metzl, Jamie F. "Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming". American Journal of International Law Vol 91: 628-651.
14. Schabas 150
15. Ibid 163
16. Ibid
17. Ibid 165
18. Chalk 104
19. Schabas 117
-top-